Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

1. The prophecy is on the apostate harlot and the ungodly of the world as seen in Rev. 11:3,7,18; 13:6,7,11,12,13,14; 17:3,4,6,18; 18:2, etc. not just Jerusalem and Judea.

In all the passages of Revelation, the context speaks in general, "earth as a whole," the whole inhabited earth, and not of a limited region of land. Earth 'Ges' is used 40 times, 'Gen' is used 23 times, 'Ge' 5 times, 'oikoumenes' 3 times, 'kosmou' 2 times. In ALL these passages we see no "qualifier" to confirm the passage is referring to a 'limited region of land,' within a certain geographical area of the world. None of these passages have the qualifier Tribes -- 'of Israel,'-- Land-- 'of Israel,'-- 'of Judea,'-- 'of Galilee,'-- 'of Jerusalem,' etc., etc. No qualifier whatsoever that these passages are speaking about the Jews, its nation, its city or its land, i.e 'land of Israel.'

2. The persecution of the saints comes from the beast AND the false prophet (the apostate church/assembly from within the true body of Christ). Rev. 13:7,12,14. The persecution of the saints go hand in hand with the other events given within the prophetic time-frame. The prophecy and their times are specific and clear concerning the saints and the beast: Dan. 7:25; 12:7;12:11,12; Rev. 11:2,3;13:5,6,7, '---to make war with the saints,--.' These passages speak of the SAME events that 'include the persecution of the saints' which would occur 'within' that prophetic time given. The 'time passages' speak of Persecution of 'saints,' not Persecution of 'apostate Jews.'

3. There was no persecution of the saints, as preterists claim 'during' this prophetic time sequence given the beast (Rome) seen in Rev. 13:5-7. Tradition tells us that the Christians 'fled out of Jerusalem 'during that time frame,' to a stronghold city called Pella before the Romans completely surrounded and destroyed Jerusalem. (67-70 A.D.).

4. I will also note that Nero's persecution of the saints 'occurred in Rome' not in the environs of Jerusalem, and at a different time frame. History attests that Nero's persecution occurred at the end of A.D. 64 (Nov.) to June A.D. 68 (these times are from Ken Gentry's book 'Before Jerusalem Fell), where Nero then committed suicide. We see the persecution 'time frame' nor the 'place' coincides with the prophetic time frame of the 42 months, said as being fulfilled in 66-70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem. The preterist time frame scenario clearly does not meet the requirements of the prophecy seen in Revelation.

5. In Josephus' War of the Jews Bk. 3, 4:2, and Bk. 5, 1:6, we read the total of Roman troops gathered in the war with the Jews. Rev. 9:16 states, 'And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand; and I heard the number of them.' No matter how we look at it, the language used in the passage clearly indicates a vast innumerable multitude released there. A number 'vastly different' from the 6000 troops from the Euphrates mentioned by Josephus. Even if you add the 'auxiliaries' 3000 mentioned by Josephus that came later in the war, this only amounts to 9000 men. Even if you were to count the total of troops being 60,000 gathered at the beginning of the war, it simply does not meet the prophecy of the 6th trumpet—far, far from it!

6. summarizing chapter 11: Certainly Jerusalem was called the holy city in scripture, but not when she was out of covenant and under the judgment of God. This is seen throughout scripture. Jerusalem is never called 'holy' when under prophetic judgment, here are a few examples: Ezek. 4:7; 21:2; Amos 2:5; Micah 3:10; Zeph. 1:4; Mal. 2:11; etc.

7. Scriptural evidence shows that the phrase 'the great city' given in all but one scripture refers to 'Gentile nation/cities,' and not to the nation/city of the Jews.

8. In scripture Jerusalem is never designated 'Babylon.'

9. Jerusalem is never called 'Egypt' in scripture.

10. Preterists hold Rev 11 to be the temple in Jerusalem, the temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D., but here the evidence shows otherwise and is to be 'protected,' contrary to their view. "Measuring" in scripture can mean destruction, but also means protection: Ezek. 41:4; Ezek.42:20; Ezek.43:12; Zech. 2:1-5. Since this allegedly occurred in 70 A.D., why would God want John to measure this temple if it was the temple in Jerusalem, and this 'measuring' was for destruction and NOT protection? There would be no reason for measuring it in the way it was done, for 'all' was given over for destruction in 70 A.D., the temple, the courts and the city. From what we know, there were no worshipers (Christians) left in Jerusalem, they had all fled elsewhere. Ezekiel 40-48 shows us the "symbolisms and meanings" of what chapter 11 means, why its called a temple there among the other things. The temple in Revelation is measured as in Ezekiel, and as in Ezekiel seen as holy and dedicated to the lord, the temple and all who worship within.

11. The ascension of the witnesses, the earthquake where 7 thousand die all occur 'after' the time of the fall of the city, how can that be? According to preterists THIS chapter is about the city 'of Jerusalem' and its fall, which includes all these events seen in the chapter. And we see the events of chapter 11 are given 'chronologically.' Yet this chapter states that only a tenth of the city fell after that time expired. Not only that, but that it was due to an earthquake, not the Romans. There is absolutely no mention in Josephus' records of an earthquake or the testimony of the witnesses for 3 ˝ years nor their deaths and ascension by their enemies after they were killed as is recorded in Revelation chapter 11.

12. Note here in Rev. 14:20 that this winepress (judgment) of God is to be trodden upon 'outside the city.' If this city is Jerusalem and her fall in 70 A.D. as preterists hold, then why is this text leaving out 'this city' in this judicial judgment? I know the 'great city' Babylon is seen as judged in Rev.16:19, but why not here if it be Jerusalem as preterists claim?

We read in Rev. 11:2, 'But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the nations (ethnos): and the holy city* shall they tread under foot forty and two months.'

Rev. 14:20, 'And the winepress (of the wrath of God) was trodden without the city* and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.'

We see the city in Rev. 11:2 where the temple is considered of God, measured and protected, and the city, though it is troddened upon is seen as holy is the same city seen in Rev. 14:20, it is protected from the wrath of God. Confirming that the city in Rev. 11:2 is NOT the city of Jerusalem, neither is the 'great city' called Sodom and Egypt 1st century Jerusalem, seen in 11:8 and elsewhere in the book.

13. In Rev. 11:2 the temple was measured, but excluded from the trampling. It says the outer court is given over to the Gentiles to be trampled on for 42 months. However in the war with the Jews, Jerusalem/city and the temple courts were not trampled on by the Romans (Gentiles) for 42 months. Most of the 'trampling time' of the 42 months was done by the 3 factions within the city and they were ALL apostate Jews, not Gentiles. Here's a short history of the events of 70 A.D.

General chronology of the Jewish war-source, Josephus.

The Jewish rebellion began in May 66 A.D.

The Zealots take control of the Temple-Aug.-Sept. 66 A.D.

Cestius Gallus' campaign against the Jews and his defeat-Oct.-Nov. 66 A.D.

Zealots escape to Masada, after a long siege Masada falls in April of 73 A.D. ending Jewish war.

Note that the Romans (Gentiles) under Gallus's rule besieged Jerusalem for only several months. When Vespasian ruled he fought the cities in Judea and Samaria, not the city Jerusalem, and then started to besiege Jerusalem but Nero died so the armies retreated until May of 70 A.D. These last 5 months is when they surrounded Jerusalem and finally destroyed it. So the actual time of trampling Jerusalem by the Gentiles ( Romans) only consisted of 7-9 months, a year at the very most, and not 42 months or 1260 days. So it certainly does not fit the times and events given in Daniel and Revelation. And Daniel 9:26 and Luke 21: 20 state that Jerusalem, not the surrounding cities and territories will be surrounded and destroyed, but no time frame is given in those passages.

14. According to preterists during the 42 months, the War of the Jews is the time of Rev. 16:14 they are: '---spirits of devils that come out of the mouth of the dragon, the beast and false prophet ---which go forth unto the kings of the earth (oikoumenes) and the whole world (kosmou) to gather them to the battle--.' First, the Roman Empire was ruled by a one person/king called the Emperor, but here it speaks of the 'gathering of many kings.' The gathering of many kings throughout the whole world (kosmou), as the Euphrates was dried up (symbolically) to prepare the way for 'the kings of the east' to cross over from those eastern regions beyond the Euphrates. On the east lay the Parthian Empire enemies of Rome at the time. The Greek word 'oikoumenes' and 'kosmou' are used interchangably in this passage to make clear that the context is speaking of not just the 'inhabited world,' of the Roman empire according to preterists, but the 'entire inhabited world/planet' (kosmou).
There was no gathering of 'many kings' throughout the world, ie. Roman Empire as history shows in the destruction of Jerusalem, and its commander in chief was general Titus, not 'many kings.' (Except for Rome's 3 client kings mentioned earlier that was under Roman rule). Note also that the 6th trumpet also has to do with the River Euphrates where a vast innumerable multitude army was released at the time of its sounding . Now here under the 6th vial, a 'worldwide gathering of kings occurs,' to make way for the 'kings of the east, beyond the Euphrates, the whole of which is 'destroyed by God' on 'that great day of God Almighty' as the passage reads. Rome and its empire was certainly not destroyed by God in 70 A.D., let alone 'the kings from the east.'

15. The Roman forces (alleged kings from the east) did not come from 'the east' to begin the attack, some of the forces came from 'north and west in southern Turkey,' many, many miles from the east of the Euphrates River. The rest came from Egypt. All the Roman forces that were gathered came from the west not the east. In Josephus Bk. 3, 2:4, Vespasian had gone to Syria, today's southern Turkey, far from the Euphrates, to gather the Roman forces in that neighborhood, and they marched to Ptolemais a seaport city by Mt. Carmel in Galilee. Titus took with him the forces from north central Egypt where he was sent to for that reason, from there he went to meet his father Vespasian at Ptolemais. There is where the gathering for the war took place.

1.There was no 'innumerable multitude' of troops released at the Euphrates. (Rev. 9:16).
2.There were no 'kings from the east' of the Euphrates that crossed over. (Rev. 16:12).
3.There was no 'gathering of kings of the whole inhabited earth' at that time other than the 4 puppet kings from Syria and Arabia. (Rev. 16:14).

16. Rev. 16:19, 'And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations ('ethnos,' Gentiles) fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.' We see here Mystery Babylon falls, and 'with' her fall so does 'the cities of the nations/Gentiles' as this passage reveals, yet this did not occur in 70 A.D. Rome and the nations she dominated continued well into the 4th century. These passages in Revelation clearly show God's wrath is also upon the cities of the Gentile nations of the earth and not only on Israel. The passage shows us that when Babylon falls the cities of the Gentiles also fall with her.

17. Rev.17:1-2 'And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore (porne) that sitteth upon many waters: with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.' Israel never made the nations and kings drunk with 'her fornication,' it was the other way around. SHE was the one who went A-whoring and became a Harlot by the fornication of the surrounding nations' idols and false gods. Biblical history clearly shows that Israel was made drunk by the fornication of the nations, and in the end was destroyed, not the other way around. These passages are not speaking of the OC Harlot Jerusalem of the 1st century, rather it speaks of the NC harlot who has committed fornication with the kings of the earth.

18. The 'kings of the earth mourned' when they saw her burning (Rev. 18:9). There were no kings of the Roman empire (inhabited earth) mourning for Jerusalem's burning in 70 A.D., they 'celebrated.' This passage speaks of a sudden end that comes upon her. This didn't occur with 1st century Jerusalem, it took nearly four years to destroy her. Notice how many times "one hour" is mentioned. This destruction is very rapid, not so with Jerusalem. The merchants and seamen seem terrified and amazed at this sudden judgment that comes upon this great city. Their mourning is not for the city, however, but because their wealth derived from trade in shipping is now at an end. This could not be said of 1st century Jerusalem.

19. Rev. 18:24, 'And in her was found the blood of prophets (OC-NC; 1 Cor. 12:28), and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.' When we read Jeremiah chapter 51, we see Babylon is clearly being spoken of distinctly 'from Jerusalem.' (Read Jer. 51:35). 'As Babylon (hath caused) the slain of Israel to fall, so at Babylon shall fall 'the slain of all the earth.' (Jer. 51:49). The slain of all the earth is not found in 1st century Jerusalem who is never called "Babylon," but here in the harlot, Mystery Babylon.

20. We read in Rev. 20:9: "they surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city." This phrase clearly shows it 'cannot' be speaking of the apostate Jews and Jerusalem being surrounded by the Roman armies for "that generation was apostate and they and their city was cursed by Jesus in 30 A.D." (Mt. 23:38). It is clear that the main message of Revelation is it is a 'war against the saints of the Lord." ( Rev. 6:11; 7:14; 11:7; 12:17; 13:7; 17:6; 19:2; 20:7,8,9) not against apostate Jews.

21. We read in Rev. 20:9, 'fire came down from God out of heaven' and destroyed (devoured) God's enemies, the enemies (Gog and Magog) 'that surrounded the beloved city and the saints.' We see here, the city and the saints are rescued by God's miraculous intervention, contrary to the preterist 70 A.D. position. The unbelieving Jews and city, the harlot according to preterists were under 'God's judgment' in 70 A.D. not protection, with no intervention from God, and the Jews and the city were destroyed. The Roman armies were victorious and 'were not destroyed by God's intervention.'

I will end it here with what Richard (Ram) calls 'minor variations and minor points.' They are given to show they are MAJOR variations and points, not minor as described by Richard.

For the readers interested, below are a few links where these issues were discussed, I am done here.

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

Thank you for your commentary. I have read it through and I can see that you have put a lot of work into it. I agree that the the Olivet prophecy as recorded in the three Gospel records is speaking about the end of times which go way beyond AD70.

Of course, as Jesus had not been given the date of when these things would happen, he could only give the prophecy in a way that anyone hearing it could expect it to happen in their lifetime. This prophecy is speaking of the last days and has nothing to do with the destruction of the temple. As you say, Jesus dealt with that and was answering the question of when the kingdom would be restored to Israel. It was never restored by the time of AD70 and that is why it is interesting to watch events unfold as God has restored the Nation of Israel in 1948. There is a lot more to happen, but we can see how God is setting the stage for the return of His Son and the Great Day of the Lord to come when God will pour out punishment on all the nations and even Israel will not go unpunished. However, the establishment of the Nation of Israel has been done for a purpose. Israel could never have survived had it not been the purpose of God to keep the Nation of Israel as his witnesses in the world. It does not matter if the Jews have not recognized Christ, that veil will be lifted. The Jews always believed in a Messiah to come and save them and there never has been a time when they were saved. That is why Jesus must return and next time he will come to save them from extinction. Then the prophecies that they were expecting to be fulfilled will be when they see their Messiah and when they look on him whom they pierced two thousand years ago, they will mourn as a nation for their rejection of God's Son when the crucified him. There is so much more prophecy to be fulfilled and it could all happen very quickly when it does.

Richard is only correct in saying that all three prophecies have the words; And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains
I do not know what the motive was behind by the person who proposed all prophecies ended in AD70, but it has for sure, fooled a lot of people. There are too many things mentioned in prophecy that has not happened before or after AD70 - 73, I struggle to see how the preterists have come up with there conclusions.

There are some some minor differences in the gospel records. As long as Matthew and Mark speak of the Abomination of Desolation I would conclude the desolation mentioned in Luke is speaking of the same event. An event must be found corresponding to the abomination of desolation in the future from when Jesus was speaking.

Considering that the destruction of Jerusalem is after AD70 then that its in with God promising not to make a full end of Israel and restoring then in their own land prior to the third and final punishment that would come on them including Jerusalem. Luke speaks the phrase Richard like to quote and then adds the phrase; Luke 21:24 and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Just because this follows Luke quoting Jesus as saying about the imminent destruction of Jerusalem that is still future, does not mean the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled after this event. All I think (and it is only Luke who records this) Luke is saying that up to this time, Jerusalem is encompassed around with armies, Jerusalem will be trodden down until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

It is interesting to note that in the six days war of 1967, Jerusalem came under the total control of the Jews for the first time. Since Jerusalem is a burdensome stone, and has been under gentile control for centuries, we might look at that event as significant. I think the end of the Gentile times relate to the period we are in that at any time around AD70.

The message of Jesus is to watch. Jesus will come as a thief in the night to the majority of the world, and will only be expected by those who are looking for him. God has given assurance to those who will be saved that they will be taken away before the Great Day of the Lord. Christ could be back in the earth anytime time soon preparing for the great day of battle, when he will finally emerge with his saints and he will come to Jerusalem and his feet will stand once more on the Mount of Olives and then the prophecy in Zechariah will be fulfilled and the Mount of Olives will cleave in two and there will be a major change in the topography of Jerusalem. If this coincides with the day that God shakes the earth, then we can expect major changes to take place in the earth's topography again.

We are living in interesting times as we watch God's hand at work in setting the stage in the Middle East when all the nations will be gathered together to do battle and Israel will be at the center.

Okay fine, let me get straight to the point rather than answer your entire post. You say all three, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree on the 'bulk of the prophecy.' So I take it you understand when I say the 'bulk of the prophecy' that I speak not only of the Discourse but also all that which relates to it, which is Dan.9:24-27; Dan. 12: 7,11,12, the book of Revelation and other related prophetic passages in the NT.; that which you call 'minor variations.'

Also you hold (as all partial and full preterists also agree) that Dan. 9:24-27 and Dan.12:7,11,12 'God's holy people' are speaking about the apostate Jews of 1st century Jerusalem. And you hold that Mt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14 the 'abomination of desolation' is the prophecy of Luke 21:20, the Roman armies encompassing Jerusalem. You also hold that the book of Revelation is the fulfillment of the prophecies seen in Daniel and the Discourse. Then why do the many prophetic passages in Matthew, Mark, Daniel, Revelation, and other texts relating to the prophecy totally contradict your views of their fulfillment as confirmed by scripture and history? These are the facts (given below) that need to be dealt with and refuted in order for preterism to be 'true' as you claim and rigidly hold on to. Here are a few seen in the Discourse:

I like getting straight to the point. There's no need for many words since we both know the Bible.

And yes, as you know, I believe that the only viable interpretation of the Olivet Discourse includes its full integration with Daniel, Revelation, Joel, Acts, etc. Indeed, that's what makes the case for Preterism. The Olivet Discourse is known as the "little apocalypse" and Christ's statement about it all coming down in the first century generation fits perfectly with Revelation's statement that the events would happen "soon ... for the time is at hand" and the identification of Jerusalem as the great city called Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon. And this all coheres with the fact that Revelation had to be fulfilled in the first century because it was not sealed, unlike Daniel which was sealed unto the "end time." The evidence is overwhelming if you just look at the "big picture." Your focus on minor details is what destroys the unity of the Bible. If we applied the same methodology to the rest of the Bible, we couldn't understand a word of it.

I do not assert that the apostates were called "The holy people." That's just a periphrastic way to refer to the Jews. This is typical of your entire approach to the Bible. You nit-pick words in an effort to force them to support your case when they do not, in fact, support it in any way at all. This should be obvious to you because I do not know of a single competent commentator who would use that argument. Can you quote one? Even one?

I have never asserted that the Abomination of Desolation was the Roman army. Sure, some foolish Preterists have followed the Futurist habit and have vainly speculated about it, but they are irrelevant. I've never said a word about it. It seems likely that it refers to any apostate high priest who went about in the Temple doing what he wanted, acting as if he owned the place and blaspheming God. Josephus writes about the wicked men that were in the temple just before the destruction. Indeed, he blames them for bringing down the wrath of Titus.

Your assertion that there are "many prophetic passages in Matthew, Mark, Daniel, Revelation, and other texts relating to the prophecy totally contradict your views of their fulfillment as confirmed by scripture and history" is absurd. When we look at the "big picture" we see just the opposite. All the time texts fit with Preterism and cannot be overcome because they are independent mutually confirming verses. And history confirms that the Temple was destroyed in the first century in perfect and complete harmony with the Preterist interpretation. Your assertion is nothing but hot air. I'm surprised you chose to assert such a blatant falsehood. I would REALLY like to collect the list of all the "problematic" passages under the two interpretations. My guess is that Preterism would win something like 80 to 20, or better.

Originally Posted by Twospirits

1. The Romans (the abomination) didn't stand in 'the holy place' (Mt. 24:15) preterists hold to be the Jewish temple until the 'end' of the tribulation. Which would be to late for it to be a sign for the saints to flee Judea. As Matthew gives this sign as being the 'beginning' of the tribulation in order that they could flee to safety. Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f.

I never said the Romans were the AoD. It was probably an apostate priest (aka the false prophet of Rev). Josephus wrote about how bad they were. When the Christians saw his blasphemy in the Temple (which the zealots filled with unclean corpse, etc.) they new it was time to get out of town. That's a very simply and compelling explanation, it seems to me.

Originally Posted by Twospirits

2. The parallel passages to Daniel, Matthew and Mark are Rev. 20:7-9 which speaks of the hordes of Gog and Magog gathered together (Rev. 20:8) which 'surrounded the camp of the saints, and the beloved city.' But the enemies of Gog and Magog were destroyed by God's intervention, and the 'camp of the saints and the beloved city' were 'saved by God.' These events contradicts the events of A.D. 70 which preterists say were fulfilled by the Romans, for the Roman armies were not destroyed by God's intervention, they were victorious, and the Jews and the city was destroyed, not saved. Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f And Rev. 20:7-9.

I've never seen a coherent or convincing explanation of that passage from anyone. You can't build your futurism on such ambiguous unknowns. It's is an obscure passage from an obscure chapter of the most symbolic book in the Bible. It cannot be used as a "test" of any interpretation, whether Futurist or Preterist.

Originally Posted by Twospirits

3. The text Jesus cited in Matthew and Mark concerning the 'holy place's desecration' in Daniel 9:27 predicts that the one who desecrates this 'holy place' (Mt. 24:15) will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in A.D.70, the Romans were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple. Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f and Dan. 9:27.

There is no reason to doubt he was destroyed, especially if he was the apostate high priest. But it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the AoD means, because the Bible does not give us any confirming verses. This is the fundamental flaw in your whole methodology. You focus on minor points (strain at gnats) while ignoring the camel sitting in the middle of the room that unifies the entire prophetic complex.

Originally Posted by Twospirits

4. In Daniel's 'the holy place,' we see it is to "anoint," (Dan. 9:24) not destroy the sanctuary as seen in Dan. 9:26, showing again that the 70 sevens cannot have been fulfilled in 70 A.D., because the Jerusalem sanctuary was destroyed by the Romans; 'this' sanctuary in Dan. 9:24 is to be "anointed." Therefore the Roman armies cannot be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f and Dan. 9:24,27.

The literal translation in Dan. 9:24 is the Holy of holies. This expression appears forty-six times in the Old Testament, and it is never used of the Messiah (to anoint), it is never used of a "person." The expression always refers to the temple, the Holy of holies, or furniture or articles used in temple worship. The Holy of holies is mentioned in Ezek. 41:4 and Ezek. 43:12, in Ezekiel's vision of the temple measuring.

There are many Christians who disagree with you, and there is no consensus that supports your case. So again, it's just a minor hermeneutical point that can be "massaged" by the interpreter to fit any preconceived eschatology. That is why you focus on these kinds of things. They lead to nothing but disputations because Scripture does not give the answer.

If Preterism is true, then your interpretation is false. You can't prove Preterism false by merely asserting one particular interpretation of an ambiguous passage. You have to establish the truth of Futurism on its own merits with clear and unambiguous passages supported by many mutually confirming witnesses. You have not done anything like that. Indeed, you cann't even tell me a clear and coherent "big picture" of what the NT is all about. I did it for you a number of times because the "Big Picture" is fundamentally Preterism. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the Elijah who was to come before 1) the Christ [30 AD] and 2) The great and terrible day of the Lord [70 AD]. The entire NT confirms this but you ignore or deny all the evidence. I've tried to walk through it with you but you would not. It's extremely plain and obvious supported by a mountain of mutually confirming verses.

Originally Posted by Twospirits

5. If the Roman armies (or the zealots) are the abomination that causes desolation given in Matthew and Mark then this contradicts Dan. 9:27 and Dan.12:7,11,12. For Dan. 12:11 says, 'And from the time (that) the daily (sacrifice) shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, (there shall be) a thousand two hundred and ninety days.'

This passage tells us that the daily in the 'holy place' is taken away 3 ˝ years+ 'prior' to the time that the abomination that causes desolation is set up. For those who hold the preterist view that the events speak of armies surrounding Jerusalem as being the abomination (or the zealots in the 'holy place'), this means that the sacrifices would have to have ceased sometime in Jan.-Feb. of 66 A.D. to the time of the abomination being set up ie. the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem (or the zealots in the 'holy place'). Yet Josephus records that the sacrifices continued even after the Zealots entered the temple and the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem up to the final months of that siege. (Josephus' War with the Jews; Bk. 5, chap 1:2,3). Therefore the Roman armies nor the Zealots can be the fulfillment of Matthew 24:15f and Mark 13:14f; Dan. 9:24,27;Dan.12:7,11,12.

Again, you are basing your argument on your speculations about the meaning of the AoD. If the sacrifices really did continue up to the destruction of the Temple, then maybe the Bible was simply wrong on this point. In no way can you use such details to reject the vast body of mutually confirming verses that support Preterism.

Preterism is founded on the main and plain things that no one can deny. Christ began the discourse by predicting the destruction of the Temple during the lifetime of his first century audience. History confirms that's what happened. Preterism wins, hands down.

All your focus on minor details will remain meaningless until you deal with the main and the plain passages supported by many mutually confirming verses. The problem is, you can't explain ANY of the verses you are bring up because you have NO KNOWLEDGE of what is going to happen in the Future. Thus, the Futurist can just assert that everything is going to happen in such a way that all the prophecies will be perfectly fulfilled. But that's utterly absurd because 1) it's just empty words, and 2) the main body of the prophecies can't be future because they have already been fulfilled.

So here's my proposition. We should WORK TOGETHER to create a list of all the verses naturally accounted for in the Futurist and Preterist paradigms. Then we can see which is better.

You game?

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

Hello Richard
Twospirits said he was done and after this, I will be too in this thread. I shall just make one or two comments on what you have replied to Twospirits.
I will add my comments in red

Originally Posted by RAM

I like getting straight to the point. There's no need for many words since we both know the Bible.

And yes, as you know, I believe that the only viable interpretation of the Olivet Discourse includes its full integration with Daniel, Revelation, Joel, Acts, etc. Indeed, that's what makes the case for Preterism. The same is said for Futurists, so that was an uneccessary statement you made and was only made to try and assert your correctness and have the upper hand. The Olivet Discourse is known as the "little apocalypse" and Christ's statement about it all coming down in the first century generation fits perfectly with Revelation's statement that the events would happen "soon ... for the time is at hand" and the identification of Jerusalem as the great city called Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon. And this all coheres with the fact that Revelation had to be fulfilled in the first century because it was not sealed,therefore it remains open to include the unsealing of Daniels prophecy nearing the time of the end unlike Daniel which was sealed unto the "end time." The evidence is overwhelming if you just look at the "big picture." My big picture is different to yours. As I said in another post to you, your big picture is a subset of the larger Big PictureYour focus on minor details is what destroys the unity of the Bible.your avoidance of the detail is what leads you to error If we applied the same methodology to the rest of the Bible, we couldn't understand a word of it. and that is your problem, you have got parts wrong because you have not found the understanding

I do not assert that the apostates were called "The holy people." That's just a periphrastic way to refer to the Jews. This is typical of your entire approach to the Bible. You nit-pick words what you call nit-picking is getting to the truth to avoid falling into the errors you have by dismissing things you do not think are importantin an effort to force them to support your case when they do not, in fact, support it in any way at all. This should be obvious to you because I do not know of a single competent commentator who would use that argument. Can you quote one? Even one?

I have never asserted that the Abomination of Desolation was the Roman army. Sure, some foolish Preterists have followed the Futurist habit and have vainly speculated about it, but they are irrelevant. I've never said a word about it. It seems likely that it refers to any apostate high priest who went about in the Temple doing what he wanted, acting as if he owned the place and blaspheming God. Josephus writes about the wicked men that were in the temple just before the destruction. Indeed, he blames them for bringing down the wrath of Titus. you are admitting that you do not know what the Abomination of Desolation is and so you dismiss it as irrelevant so as not to upset your line of incorrect reasoning.

Your assertion that there are "many prophetic passages in Matthew, Mark, Daniel, Revelation, and other texts relating to the prophecy totally contradict your views of their fulfillment as confirmed by scripture and history" is absurdnot absurd as you try to assser, makes sense to me (just to get this balanced up). When we look at the "big picture" we see just the opposite as already said; your big picture is not the whole picture. All the time texts fit with Preterism and cannot be overcome because they are independent mutually confirming verses.your citation of that one common phrase between the three synoptic gospels is no confirmation of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. Of course if you cannot see that there has to be another destruction to come, you have no alternative to think what you do and apply it to AD70 And history confirms that the Temple was destroyed in the first century in perfect and complete harmony with the Preterist interpretationYes it fitted in with Jesus statement that the temple would be destroyed, but Jesus went on to answer the question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel; and the disciples were looking at a physical restoration. You completely dismiss this.. Your assertion is nothing but hot airI find your dismissiveness of important words of scripture chilling.. I'm surprised you chose to assert such a blatant falsehoodnot so blatant as your own falsehood. I would REALLY like to collect the list of all the "problematic" passages under the two interpretations. My guess is that Preterism would win something like 80 to 20, or better.You say words lie "seem" , "guess" your uncertainty lets you down in claiming to be correct. You make bold assertions of misunderstood verses to claim that your interpretation is the correct one. All you are doing is showing yourself to be; Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

I never said the Romans were the AoD. It was probably an apostate priest (aka the false prophet of Rev). Josephus wrote about how bad they were. When the Christians saw his blasphemy in the Temple (which the zealots filled with unclean corpse, etc.) they new it was time to get out of town. That's a very simply and compelling explanation, it seems to meExactly right; it seems to you that way. Hereby you admit that it is only your observation. This is not shared by others so why be so assertive you are always right?.

I've never seen a coherent or convincing explanation of that passage from anyone. You can't build your futurism on such ambiguous unknowns. It's is an obscure passage from an obscure chapter of the most symbolic book in the Bible. It cannot be used as a "test" of any interpretation, whether Futurist or Preterist. You are dismissing Gog and Magog? What a travesty, you are wresting scripture if you fail to find out about God and Magog. No wonder you do not see the big picture and only a part of it

There is no reason to doubt he was destroyed, especially if he was the apostate high priest. But it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the AoD means, because the Bible does not give us any confirming verses. This is the fundamental flaw in your whole methodology. You focus on minor points (strain at gnats) while ignoring the camel sitting in the middle of the room that unifies the entire prophetic complex. From another person's perspective, your blindness not to see the importance of words makes you the more blind with the beam that is in your own eye

There are many Christians who disagree with youand there are many Christians who disagree with RAM, and there is no consensus that supports your caseyes there is, I am one of the consensus in support. So again, it's just a minor hermeneutical point that can be "massaged" by the interpreter to fit any preconceived eschatologyalso, you just want to ignore anything that does not fit in with your eschatology. That is why you focus on these kinds of things. They lead to nothing but disputations because Scripture does not give the answer[COLOR="#FF0000"]scripture can give the answer as you know, but you have failed to find all the answers; that is OK we should all be searching for answers to resolve scripture as best we can/COLOR].

If Preterism is true, then your interpretation is false. You can't prove Preterism false by merely asserting one particular interpretation of an ambiguous passage. You have to establish the truth of Futurism on its own merits with clear and unambiguous passages supported by many mutually confirming witnesses. You have not done anything like that. Indeed, you cann't even tell me a clear and coherent "big picture" of what the NT is all about. I did it for you a number of times because the "Big Picture" is fundamentally Preterism. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the Elijah who was to come before 1) the Christ [30 AD] and 2) The great and terrible day of the Lord [70 AD]. The entire NT confirms an utterly wrong statement to make and you wrest scripture when you say thisthis but you ignore or deny all the evidence. I've tried to walk through it with you but you would not. It's extremely plain and obvious supported by a mountain of mutually confirming verses.

Again, you are basing your argument on your speculations about the meaning of the AoD. It is milestone on the way to fulfilling all prophecy, miss the milestones and no wonder you are off track If the sacrifices really did continue up to the destruction of the Temple, then maybe the Bible was simply wrong on this point. In no way can you use such details to reject the vast body of mutually confirming verses that support Preterism.

Preterism is founded on the main and plain things that no one can denyNo-one? What do you think we are doing. Christ began the discourse by predicting the destruction of the Temple during the lifetime of his first century audienceJesus was answering the question of the disciple as to what would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age and when the kingdom would be restored to Israel. History confirms that's what happened. Preterism wins, hands down. Balderdash

All your focus on minor details will remain meaningless until you deal with the main and the plain passages supported by many mutually confirming verses. The problem is, you can't explain ANY of the verses you are bring up because you have NO KNOWLEDGE of what is going to happen in the Futureno more so than you from what I read. Thus, the Futurist can just assert that everything is going to happen in such a way that all the prophecies will be perfectly fulfilled. But that's utterly absurd because 1) it's just empty words, and 2) the main body of the prophecies can't be future because they have already been fulfilled. and you are happy to reject all prohecies that obviously are intended to be fulfilled when Christ returns literally to the earth in the future. Saying Christ has already returned in the spirit is a complete wresting of scripture. It is very clear why you have preterist ideas.

So here's my proposition. We should WORK TOGETHER to create a list of all the verses naturally accounted for in the Futurist and Preterist paradigms. Then we can see which is better. This would be a good approach. Any verses/pasages which are obscure and can be taken either way can be left until the end when all verses/passages have been taken into account and then added to the winning side. After all, scripture must be reconciled.

Okay fine, let me get straight to the point rather than answer your entire post. You say all three, Matthew, Mark and Luke agree on the 'bulk of the prophecy.' So I take it you understand when I say the 'bulk of the prophecy' that I speak not only of the Discourse but also all that which relates to it, which is Dan.9:24-27; Dan. 12: 7,11,12, the book of Revelation and other related prophetic passages in the NT.; that which you call 'minor variations.'

And yes, as you know, I believe that the only viable interpretation of the Olivet Discourse includes its full integration with Daniel, Revelation, Joel, Acts, etc. Indeed, that's what makes the case for Preterism. The same is said for Futurists, so that was an uneccessary statement you made and was only made to try and assert your correctness and have the upper hand.

You misunderstood the reason. I was responding to Twospirit's assertion that he speaks "not only of the Discourse but also all that which relates to it." I was merely telling him I do the same thing.

Originally Posted by David M

The Olivet Discourse is known as the "little apocalypse" and Christ's statement about it all coming down in the first century generation fits perfectly with Revelation's statement that the events would happen "soon ... for the time is at hand" and the identification of Jerusalem as the great city called Egypt, Sodom, and Babylon. And this all coheres with the fact that Revelation had to be fulfilled in the first century because it was not sealed,therefore it remains open to include the unsealing of Daniels prophecy nearing the time of the end unlike Daniel which was sealed unto the "end time."

You failed to understand the point. We know that Revelation must have been fulfilled in the first century because it was an unsealed prophecy. It's quite obvious when we compare the reason Daniel was sealed and Revelation was not:

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:

Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Therefore, we understand that a prophetic book is sealed or not sealed depending on when it would be fulfilled. Just look at the symmetry:

Dan was SEALED because the prophecy would NOT be fulfilled in a short time.

Rev was NOT SEALED because the prophecy would be fulfilled in a short time.

If the events of Revelation were for the distant future, then it would have been sealed just like Daniel. Nothing could be more obvious.

Originally Posted by David M

The evidence is overwhelming if you just look at the "big picture." My big picture is different to yours. As I said in another post to you, your big picture is a subset of the larger Big Picture Your focus on minor details is what destroys the unity of the Bible.your avoidance of the detail is what leads you to error If we applied the same methodology to the rest of the Bible, we couldn't understand a word of it. and that is your problem, you have got parts wrong because you have not found the understanding

Your comments are mere assertion. You are ignoring the big picture. It's really very simple. Preterism is based simply on what the plainly Bible states. John the Baptist fulfilled the two prophecies concerning the "Elijah who was to come." This is confirmed by Jesus and Peter. The coming of Messiah and the Day of the Lord were linked together in the prophecies, and that's why the disciples asked about the coming in association with the destruction of the Temple. Jesus said "all these things" including both his "coming" in judgement and the destruction of the temple would happen in the first century generation. Nothing could be more obvious. All the main and plain pieces fit together. If you shred Scripture to create space for Futurism, you will have destroyed the integrity of the whole Bible.

Originally Posted by David M

This is typical of your entire approach to the Bible. You nit-pick words what you call nit-picking is getting to the truth to avoid falling into the errors you have by dismissing things you do not think are importantin an effort to force them to support your case when they do not, in fact, support it in any way at all. This should be obvious to you because I do not know of a single competent commentator who would use that argument. Can you quote one? Even one?

That's simply not true. Twospirits really does nit-pick words to death to force them to fit his interpretation even as he ignores the main and plain things. If we begin with the things that can be supported by many mutually confirming witnesses, and leave the ambiguous things for later (to be interpreted in light of the Big Picture of what the Bible really teaches), then we would never arrive at the Futurist paradigm. This is a fact, and it's very easy to prove if folks would just begin at the beginning and admit what the Bible actually states. But no one wants to do that because they know it would demonstrate that Futurism is false.

Originally Posted by David M

I have never asserted that the Abomination of Desolation was the Roman army. Sure, some foolish Preterists have followed the Futurist habit and have vainly speculated about it, but they are irrelevant. I've never said a word about it. It seems likely that it refers to any apostate high priest who went about in the Temple doing what he wanted, acting as if he owned the place and blaspheming God. Josephus writes about the wicked men that were in the temple just before the destruction. Indeed, he blames them for bringing down the wrath of Titus. you are admitting that you do not know what the Abomination of Desolation is and so you dismiss it as irrelevant so as not to upset your line of incorrect reasoning.

Wrong again. I simply declare that nobody knows what the AoD means because the Bible does not say. That's why there is so much dispute about it. And that's why it is an error to use it in the foundation of any eschatology, be it Futurist or Preterist. That would be building a house on the sand of uncertainty (which is the essential feature of Futurism, in my estimation).

Originally Posted by David M

And history confirms that the Temple was destroyed in the first century in perfect and complete harmony with the Preterist interpretationYes it fitted in with Jesus statement that the temple would be destroyed, but Jesus went on to answer the question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel; and the disciples were looking at a physical restoration. You completely dismiss this..

Where in the Olivet Discourse did Jesus predict the restoration of the kingdom of Israel?

It matters not if the disciples were looking for a physical restoration. They didn't even know the primary goal of the Gospel was to go to the Gentiles. You can't base doctrine on the ignorance of the disciples.

And yes, I completely dismiss the idea that the NT predicted a future restoration of carnal Israel. First, it is not predicted, and second, it contradicts the meaning of the entire NT.

But even if it were predicted in one or two places, it would not be the "Big Picture" you think it is. Your "Big Picture" is woven from bits and pieces of ambiguous fragments scattered throughout the Bible. You have no coherent "Big Picture" like Preterism which follows the thematic flow of the entire Bible with simplicity and grace.

Originally Posted by David M

I would REALLY like to collect the list of all the "problematic" passages under the two interpretations. My guess is that Preterism would win something like 80 to 20, or better.You say words lie "seem" , "guess" your uncertainty lets you down in claiming to be correct. You make bold assertions of misunderstood verses to claim that your interpretation is the correct one. All you are doing is showing yourself to be; Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

I just won the entire debate according the the Universal Debater's Rule Book that states: Any debater who can't defeat his opponent's arguments with logic and facts, but resorts to calling him "Satan" has forfeited the debate.

But seriously, it is absurd in the extreme that you would harass me for using words like "seem" and "guess" to indicate my lack of certainty about that specific ratio! I don't know those numbers because I have collected and counted all the verses that support Preterism vs. Futurism.

And how does being honest and expressing personal uncertainty about some as yet unmeasured statistics indicate that I am "Satan"?

Well, gotta go. I'll answer more later.

Richard

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

Your focus on minor details is what destroys the unity of the Bible. If we applied the same methodology to the rest of the Bible, we couldn't understand a word of it.

But it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the AoD means, because the Bible does not give us any confirming verses. This is the fundamental flaw in your whole methodology. You focus on minor points (strain at gnats) while ignoring the camel sitting in the middle of the room that unifies the entire prophetic complex.

The entire prophecy hinges on 'the abomination of desolation' (see Dan. 9:27; Dan.12:7,11-12; Mt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; 2 Thess. 2:3-4; Rev 13, beast of the sea and earth; etc.) for it is IT (those many passages noted) that fulfills the ENTIRE prophecy! It is this that you push aside and conclude to be 'a minor point' on my part! You accuse me of ignoring the camel in the room, yet it is you that is doing this. Because what you call 'a minor point' IS 'the camel in the middle of the room that unifies the entire prophetic complex,' as the texts in Matthew, Mark, 2 Thess., and Revelation confirms! This is the reality, that to dismiss this 'minor point' (your view) is to dismiss the whole eschatological hermeneutical understanding and meaning of the whole prophecy!

I have never asserted that the Abomination of Desolation was the Roman army. Sure, some foolish Preterists have followed the Futurist habit and have vainly speculated about it, but they are irrelevant. I've never said a word about it. It seems likely that it refers to any apostate high priest who went about in the Temple doing what he wanted, acting as if he owned the place and blaspheming God. Josephus writes about the wicked men that were in the temple just before the destruction. Indeed, he blames them for bringing down the wrath of Titus.

The point is the majority consensus view of the preterists see the abomination as the Roman armies, the minority view it as being the Zealots, and a few apostate priest (s). But the passages of Matthew and Mark I gave confirm it was none of these that preterists hold as being the fulfillment of the prophecy, for the prophecy contradicts all three views for the reasons given in my post.

Your assertion is nothing but hot air. I'm surprised you chose to assert such a blatant falsehood. I would REALLY like to collect the list of all the "problematic" passages under the two interpretations. My guess is that Preterism would win something like 80 to 20, or better.

My 'assertion' is based on the hard facts of scripture and history as can be seen in my posts, yours are backed by assertion, opinion and speculation, 'this' is nothing but hot air. Concerning a 'list' you have most of them, given in my prior posts and in the two link threads I posted for the readers. Those are the major ones that are 'problematic' in a debate between preterists and futurists as to who's eschatology is right or wrong.

I never said the Romans were the AoD. It was probably an apostate priest (aka the false prophet of Rev). Josephus wrote about how bad they were. When the Christians saw his blasphemy in the Temple (which the zealots filled with unclean corpse, etc.) they new it was time to get out of town. That's a very simply and compelling explanation, it seems to me.

'Probably' is an honest opinion, but wrong as I have stated above for the reasons given.

I've never seen a coherent or convincing explanation of that passage from anyone. You can't build your futurism on such ambiguous unknowns. It's is an obscure passage from an obscure chapter of the most symbolic book in the Bible. It cannot be used as a "test" of any interpretation, whether Futurist or Preterist.

And you never will, because it is future in fulfillment, and is the parallel passage to Matthew, Mark, Daniel and of course Revelation.

There is no reason to doubt he was destroyed, especially if he was the apostate high priest. But it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the AoD means, because the Bible does not give us any confirming verses. This is the fundamental flaw in your whole methodology. You focus on minor points (strain at gnats) while ignoring the camel sitting in the middle of the room that unifies the entire prophetic complex.

I answered that above with confirmation, the Abomination is future and was not destroyed. Yet you say 'it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the AoD means,--' Doesn't matter? He/it is the cause for the ceasing of the sacrifices and the events of the whole prophecy!

Again, you are basing your argument on your speculations about the meaning of the AoD. If the sacrifices really did continue up to the destruction of the Temple, then maybe the Bible was simply wrong on this point. In no way can you use such details to reject the vast body of mutually confirming verses that support Preterism.

No I'm not, the taking away of 'the daily' (Dan. 12:11) is vitally important, for it is to be a fore-warning sign of when the abomination would be set up in order that one might understand the prophecy of Daniel (Mt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). And you simply brush it off by saying 'then maybe the Bible was simply wrong on this point.' I don't think so.

The problem is, you can't explain ANY of the verses you are bring up because you have NO KNOWLEDGE of what is going to happen in the Future.

What does that have to do with it? The topic has become whether or not the Discourse in its entirety has been fulfilled, and I have given biblical and historical confirmation to show that it has not. That is the issue.

So here's my proposition. We should WORK TOGETHER to create a list of all the verses naturally accounted for in the Futurist and Preterist paradigms. Then we can see which is better.

You game?

How would this accomplish anything? I may be able to create a chart better than you, so what? What does that prove? It only proves I can create a chart better than you, and nothing else, big whoop!

This is what I believe accomplishes something concerning prophetic scriptures: the ones (one or more) making the claim of fulfillment, in this case preterists, are the ones who must back up their claim with biblical and historical facts to prove their position. After they have presented their position, if their opponents cannot refute them using the same sources then the preterists have proven and won their case on the prophetic scriptures being debated. If they cannot refute their opponent's scriptural and historical argument, then they lose and their position is false and should be discarded.

God bless---Twospirits

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

I have said a million times that the book of Daniel and the book in Revelation is NOT the same book! And I have solid proofs for that whereas you have none. It has nothing to do with sealed or unsealed prophesy. You can't prove at all that the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation is the same book. How about this book mention in Revelation 10 that is SEALEDand remained Unsealed? And this book is a perfect match to the book mentioned in Daniel.

1 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, 3 and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. 4 And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, 'Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down.' 5 Then the angel I had seen standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven. 6 And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, 'There will be no more delay! 7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.'

8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: 'Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.'

9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, 'Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’[a]' 10 I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. 11 Then I was told, 'You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.'

Now compare (the highlighted passages in red) the book in Daniel 12:

3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.'
5 Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, 'How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?'

7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, 'It will be for a time, times and half a time.[b] When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.'

8 I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, 'My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?'

9 He replied, 'Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

[QUOTE by RAM]You failed to understand the point. We know that Revelation must have been fulfilled in the first century because it was an unsealed prophecy. It's quite obvious when we compare the reason Daniel was sealed and Revelation was not:

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:
Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Therefore, we understand that a prophetic book is sealed or not sealed depending on when it would be fulfilled. Just look at the symmetry:

Dan was SEALED because the prophecy would NOT be fulfilled in a short time.
Rev was NOT SEALED because the prophecy would be fulfilled in a short time.

If the events of Revelation were for the distant future, then it would have been sealed just like Daniel. Nothing could be more obvious.

May God unseal the book soon.

Last edited by CWH; 04-24-2012 at 02:25 PM.

Ask and You shall receive,
Seek and You shall find,
Knock and the door will be open unto You.

I know there are many knowledgeable people on this forum. I regard myself as reasonably intelligent. I look for simplicity rather than complicated theological reasons. Jesus had a simple message about the kingdom of God and what to do to gain a place in the kingdom. I think Jesus must find us pretty pathetic if we cannot accept his simple teaching.

Now, Jesus's revelation given to John is a less simple message and I think in keeping with what he told his disciples concerning the time of the end, Jesus has given in his revelation a lot more information (in symbolic form) than he was able to tell his disciples in what we call the 'Olivet Prophecy'. Because His Heavenly Father had not revealed dates to him, Jesus could only indicate the signs. These signs such as earthquakes, floods, and famine have been seen throughout most centuries. For this reason, all through the ages, those hearing this message from Jesus thought he could return in their lifetime. As it is today , the skeptics will say; Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

This revelation was not given to Jesus until some years after he ascended into heaven. God would have been able to reveal all things concerning the future to His only begotten Son. Why did Jesus reveal this prophecy to John? The opening words of Revelation says;The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; Some of the revelation to John would have been fulfilled shortly hence the prophecy was not sealed. Jesus did not tell John that all the revelation would take circa 2,000 years to be completed and it has been open while it has been fulfilled down the centuries.

This message was revealed to John with the intention that John would pass the message on to those described as "servants". So then, Jesus's followers down the ages would receive this message. If the revelation was given with the purpose to inform people of coming events, how is it these events are said by preterists to have been fulfilled by the time of AD70?

It is widely agreed that John wrote this revelation in AD 90-95, How come, if these prophecies were all completed by AD70 was the book written in AD 90-95? It makes no sense for Jesus to give such a complex set of prophecies which would not have been immediately understood by its readers and would take time to work out. It might only have been decoded by observing events in history. The beast in Revelation fits in with the beast in Daniel and the coming of that beast is towards the latter part of the time span of the prophecy in Revelation. Again, it makes no sense to say these prophecies were completed in the first century when the revelation was not given to John until the end of the first century. Even if you go for the earlier speculated date of AD 68-70 for the revelation to be written, it makes no sense Jesus giving this revelation at such a late date.

My BIG question is; why would Jesus give us a set of prophecies written in AD 90-95 if (according to preterists) they were fulfilled in AD 70 ?

Maybe there is a simple reason that I have missed and so I wait to be enlightened by the more knowledgeable amongst us.

I know there are many knowledgeable people on this forum. I regard myself as reasonably intelligent. I look for simplicity rather than complicated theological reasons. Jesus had a simple message about the kingdom of God and what to do to gain a place in the kingdom. I think Jesus must find us pretty pathetic if we cannot accept his simple teaching.

Now, Jesus's revelation given to John is a less simple message and I think in keeping with what he told his disciples concerning the time of the end, Jesus has given in his revelation a lot more information (in symbolic form) than he was able to tell his disciples in what we call the 'Olivet Prophecy'. Because His Heavenly Father had not revealed dates to him, Jesus could only indicate the signs. These signs such as earthquakes, floods, and famine have been seen throughout most centuries. For this reason, all through the ages, those hearing this message from Jesus thought he could return in their lifetime. As it is today , the skeptics will say; Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

This revelation was not given him for some years after he ascended into heaven. Why did Jesus reveal this prophecy to John? The opening words of Revelation says;The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; Some of the revelation to John would have been fulfilled shortly hence the prophecy was not sealed. Jesus did not tell John that all the revelation would take circa 2,000 years to be completed and it has been open while it has been fulfilled down the centuries.

This was message was revealed to John with the intention that John would pass the message on to those described as "servants". So then, Jesus's followers down the ages would receive this message. If the revelation was given with the purpose to inform people of coming events, how come these events are said by preterists to have been fulfilled by the time of AD70?

It is widely agreed that John wrote this revelation in AD 90-95, How come, if these prophecies were all completed by AD70 was the book written in AD 90-95? It makes no sense for Jesus to give such a complex set of prophecies which would not have been immediately understood by its readers and would take time to work out. It might only have been decoded by observing events in history. The beast in Revelation fits in with the beast in Daniel and the coming of that beast is towards the latter part of the time span of the prophecy in Revelation.

My BIG question is; why would Jesus give us a set of prophecies written in AD 90-95 if (according to preterists) they were fulfilled in AD70?

Maybe there is a simple reason that I have missed and so I wait to be enlightened by the more knowledgeable amongst us.

David

Hi David,

The answer is simple: Revelation was written around 64 AD, just before the Roman siege against the Great Harlot Jerusalem began in 66 AD. This is confirmed in the opening lines that you quoted. The prophecy was about "things which must shortly come to pass" because "the time is at hand." There we see a double confirmation of the time texts. The things must happen "soon" because "the time is at hand." These words would be false if the events have yet to happen after two thousand years. And they are confirmed again by Christ's statement that all things would be fulfilled in "this generation" meaning the first century generation. And they are confirmed again by nearly all the NT books which speak of the "day of the Lord" coming soon, because it was "at the door" and so on and so forth. The evidence is total and complete. It cannot be controverted.

So what about the current scholastic consensus on the late date of Revelation? Since when did you begin to care about scholastic consensus???? If you follow them, then you believe that Luke was written around 80 AD! Is that what you believe? If not, are you not picking and choosing the "scholastic consensus" only when it serves your purposes?

Have you read Redating the New Testament by John A. T. Robinson? He asserts that all the books of the NT were written pre-70 AD because none of them mention the destruction of the Temple. If they were written after that event, it would be like reading the September 12th, 2001 edition of the New York Times with no mention of the Twin Towers.

The integration of the book of Revelation with the Olivet Discourse is extremely tight. That's why it's called the "little apocalypse." The Great City, the Harlot, is identified as Jerusalem in Rev 11:8, where she also is called Sodom and Egypt. And the prophecy that Christ gave against Jerusalem immediately before the Olivet Discourse is fulfilled in the fall of the great harlot:

Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, >>>All these things shall come upon this generation<<<.

Revelation 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Everything is tightly integrated. I don't see how anyone could miss something so obvious. The underlined prophecy is very similar to other prophecies against apostate Jerusalem given by Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 7:30 For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the LORD: they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to pollute it. 31 And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. 32 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. 33 And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. 34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah, and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride: for the land shall be desolate.

Jeremiah 16:9 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will cause to cease out of this place in your eyes, and in your days, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride.

Jeremiah 25:10 Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle.

I could go on and on. It's all so obvious. The Futurist paradigm has nothing like this kind of support from Scripture.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

I have said a million times that the book of Daniel and the book in Revelation is NOT the same book! And I have solid proofs for that whereas you have none. It has nothing to do with sealed or unsealed prophesy. You can't prove at all that the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation is the same book. How about this book mention in Revelation 10 that is SEALEDand remained Unsealed? And this book is a perfect match to the book mentioned in Daniel.

You said "the book of Daniel and the book in Revelation is not the same book."

I agree completely. I never said they were the same. The little book in Revelation 10 is not the book of Daniel. It is not relevant to the question at hand.

I was not talking about any book "in" Revelation. I was talking about the book "of" Revelation, which is mentioned in the final chapter:

Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book [Revelation]: for the time is at hand.

The text plainly states the reason that the book was sealed. Likewise, Daniel was told to seal up his book because the time of fulfillment was in the distant future. Therefore, we have perfect symmetry and a clear understanding:

Dan was SEALED because the prophecy would NOT be fulfilled in a short time.

Rev was NOT SEALED because the prophecy would be fulfilled in a short time.

Therefore, my argument stands.

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?